Religious Left Pushes for Arms Trade Treaty

“In a world of states that do not respect human rights, a universal treaty based on the vague and wide-ranging human rights criteria that the ATT will seek to apply to arms transfers will always apply with more force to the law-abiding than it does to the lawless,” Brumond wrote. “It will always be used by the naïve and the evil to apply the powerful weapon of shame against those with a deeply ingrained respect for the rule of law.”

Brumond further warned based on recent history: “The ATT will pretend to regulate the international arms trade, but it will have more in common with the U.N.’s aspirational treaties on human rights, which repressive regimes use to deflect attention from their misdeeds by pointing to supposed U.S. and Israeli violations.”

Under ATT, Brumond suggested, Iran could and likely would continue to transfer arms to its terror clients, while naturally claiming to comply. But should the U.S. or other powers attempt to arm rebels against Iran’s tyrannical theocracy, Iran could legally protest this violation of ATT.

Some U.S. senators may attempt to prevent legislation prohibiting ATT from affecting U.S. domestic Second Amendment gun rights. But Brumond suggested the larger threat from ATT will be the likely vagueness of its language and the wide ranging implied powers of its implementation that would embolden future international bureaucrats. “The best defense against encroachments on U.S. sovereignty—including the ability to conduct foreign policy—rests with oversight by elected officials and the vigilance of American citizens,” Brumond wrote.

But protecting U.S. sovereignty from vague, aspirational international treaties that undermine the very goals they purportedly seek is not a priority for left leaning U.S. religious groups, for whom sentiment often outranks reality. There is little new here.

In the 1920’s, groups like the old Federal Council of Churches eagerly embraced international treaties, often negotiated through the League of Nations, that restricted arms and even purportedly abolished war in the Kellogg-Briand Pact. “The principle of peace thus becomes lodged in the minds of men as the ultimate goal of humanity” celebrated endorsing Methodist bishops in 1930 about that pact. Other Methodist bishops in 1932 declared with equal certitude about global treaties: “We have gone beyond the day when war-mindedness is of any value in our program of progress.” Of course, within a few years, these aspirational treaties, and the League of Nations, became irrelevant as ascendant fascist powers brutally sought power rather than international approval.

Modern pacifist church groups that share the 1920’s era fantasies about the world joined the National Association of Evangelicals in urging the President to seek and implement ATT. So of course did leftist and functionally pacifist groups like Catholic Maryknoll order and the United Methodist Board of Church and Society. With them are secular groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Center for American Progress. Evangelicals, who realistically profess to believe in the power of human sin, should be shrewder, and more politically modest, than their fellow ATT letter signers.

Mark Tooley is President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (www.theird.org) and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. Follow him on Twitter: @markdtooley.

Schlomotion

Mr. Tooley decries "pacifist" churches who want to do the Jesus-endorsed idea: stopping war, killing, murder, hatred, and death, and replacing it with love, life, brotherhood, peace, and good will. How on Earth can Mr. Tooley's position be countenanced? A CIA run church of war-mongering and gun running? A white Kony Church run centrally from Langley, Virginia? Unacceptable, Mr. Tooley. You are not advocating Christianity or the message of Christ at all. You are an interloper in the religious franchise, doing the work of Satan, calling for the exportation of guns, ammunition, cocaine, war, doctrine, and mammon. Your very argument, that advocating peace can get one killed or crucified and therefore is imprudent and wrong is a direct violation of Christ's teachings. You are no Christian. You are a Satanist.

UCSPanther

If a church wants me to get rid of my shootin' irons, they can go sod off and die.

The same goes for the UN.

wctaqiyya

Fogmotion, I reckon we both work for the same taskmaster. For to stir up the comment section and all. What I want to know is, why don't I get the same reaction level I used to get? It seems I can say bo-diddly and nobody minds. What's the secret? BTW, if you try out a slightly higher level of credibility, your efforts might be more better. Peace to you. Islamic peace. Ha ha.

Schlomotion

People come up with secret agreements via email and listservs to shun posters. Frontpage works the same way as Indymedia and Wikipedia. Many of the commenters here are also informally affiliated with the site. Two members use WordPress dashboards to comment via the IntenseDebate plugin. Two commenters here just run interference for other commenters who agree with the site. (For example, instantly after I posted this reply, PurdyStuart checked my profile page). At least four of the commenters here are with PJmedia, or from a blog that is routinely cited on Frontpage as a source. I don't just read Frontpage. I read all the respective blogs, twitter feeds, YouTube channels of the authors and commenters. I have a 25 member namebase for unofficial contributors and a 40 member namebase of authorized contributors, and have researched their individual publications, organizations, structures and biographies. I correlate misspellings, publication times, and unique linguistic identifiers to find out the real identity of anonymous contributors. I always make comments specific to the individual.

wctaqiyya

Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.

Ted G

I guess I'm curious about how your analysis defines me.

I post as an individual American patriot! I am a 50ish man without party affiliation.
I consider myself spiritual but claim no religion.

I believe in freedom and liberty for all and I will speak plainly against all totalitarian ideologies.

My question for you is why don't you?

Schlomotion

I do. You are making a false assumption. I decry Communism and Islam as backward totalitarian ideologies. I don't need to do it all day long on request though. That is some kind of Zionist Christian dog and pony show, and those are totalitarian ideologies too.

Ted G

Really, why not then do you writings support that statement.

You appear to be a deliberate provocateur. You also appear to defend the totalitarian ideologies.
Is this maybe your attempt at using the Socratic method?

You are also very selective in your responses, basically ignoring opportunities to reject these totalitarian ideologies.

This is why I find you to be dishonest and non-credible. If as you say you eschew totalitarian ideologies then why do you not speak plainly against them. I know you are not unaware of the thumbs down and up ratings that accompany all posts.(?)

If you are as apt as you appear to be, you could certainly put that to better use than you have currently in all these posts that I have followed.

wctaqiyya

Well sir, you ask some good questions. I have pondered some of them myself. However, If the full extent of Schlomotion's contribution is to provoke, that's fine by me. Better to provoke thought than to be a drone, yes? Whether he uses a Socratic or Talmudic method I can't say, but he does his homework and provides a very different, if somewhat unbalanced, perspective. I guess it's obvious that you are not a drone. And that's a good thing. And one more thing – Liberate Cuba!

Schlomotion

Of course I am a deliberate provocateur. I am not discussing these things by accident. I have political views.

It is not my goal to disprove my own dishonesty and lack of credibility. That is your job. Contradictions are cheap and easy. I find them amusing, you find them troubling. If I appear to defend totalitarian ideology, that is simply appearance. Sure. I am aware of the thumbs up and thumbs down ratings on my posts. Thank goodness homo-sapiens have thumbs. Now they can imitate Fonzie.

That form of voting, like many others, means nothing.

What is your suggestion as to how I may better use my aptitude? I am curious.

Ted G

O.K. well then, if the mark of a well crafted sentence, paragraph or even a paper is to make a point or express an idea, then how about allowing the perceptions attained (by a reasonable individual) from your writings match your stated principals.

If your writings are not clearly defining your ideas and principals you cannot fault the reader for reaching "false assumptions".

You may also try allowing some concluding wisdom to permeate that thick crust of indifference you exude.

Of course the ratings system available is subjective based on the participants, it however can be used as a "weather sock" so to speak. The reason I brought it up was to simply point out that it may not be only I that wonder about all the effort with little result. The implication being that you are simply having fun is somehow inadequate and very disappointing. In my mind "what a waste".

A provocateur usually has an agenda or purpose, I guess I just don't see one in yours other than just for the sake of it…you're not really trying to point out falsehoods or submit facts without spin.

This is really the only reason I have engaged you because I recognized this fact. Which is why in another thread I asked you for your motivations.

Schlomotion

I stated elsewhere, my agenda and purpose is to stop the War on Terror, break up the Hasbara movement, fight the slide of the US into a bankrupt surveillance state, produce and defend freedom, buildings, art, writing, music, and poetry, and make malevolent bullies, anonymous gatekeepers and craven impresarios miserable. It's OK with me if people draw the wrong conclusions. It doesn't stop the process or hinder it. Sometimes it even helps to be mistaken for something else. People frequently labor under the wrong conception where they would not have labored otherwise.

Ted G

Well I did try…I guess my previous conclusions were not far from the mark.

BTW It was I that asked and you responded with your agenda in a previous thread. Though you never did respond to my follow up questions.

You talk a good game but you just can't get away from your support for genocide of the Jewish people can you? Oh I know you never actually said that but that is how deception works isn't it? Stop the war on terror and break up the Hasbara movement indeed…!

Why don't you regale me now on the virtues of islam, come on I'm an open mind ripe for the picken'

wctaqiyya

Gentlemen, please forgive me for poaching, again, on your semi-private discussion. Ted, you did a fine job trying to change Schlomotion's mind. But, you must know that changing minds is a very difficult thing. Schlomotion did a very good job provoking commentator participation. And it wasn't even a name calling ping-pong game. Salutations all around.

Now, about those virtues of Islam. At the risk of provoking some angry comments, I can offer you a few. First, when the Muslims take over, they will correct the cultural drift towards state sponsored perversion we now endure with the LGBT political agenda. They will over correct for it, but hey, abrupt cultural changes can be rather brutal. Oh well, it will still be an improvement. Further, the entire institution of affirmative action, entitlements based on gender, race, etc., will be burned to the ground. Again, brutal but necessary. In addition, society will be simplified. There are five basic tasks required of Muslims. As one erudite blogger once said, a trained dog can be a good Muslim. Simple is good. Since Americans are so confused and frankly, stupid as a pile of rocks, they have this coming. In spades. No country that imports millions of sworn enemies and keeps those enemies angry as heck by conducting idiotic military operations in their sand boxes deserves to survive. No, really. Moreover, playing second or third fiddle to females, blacks and perverts is just unacceptable. Those groups deserve their special legal protections about as much as animals deserve rights. Not at all. OK, these 'pro' Muslim points might not be virtuous, but virtue isn't really on the game-board anymore is it?

Ted G

Whoa, whoa now, I was O.K. on your first paragraph. But pretty much everything after that was…if I may paraphrase " nothing more than "Islam is the answer".

Sorry, but I reject that whole idea outright ! In my mind I cannot comprehend how it's possible that people of intelligence can argue this.
First, you really did not provide any real virtues of islam at all, which is telling in itself. What I think you did was to reinforce the truth that islam is first and foremost a political and militaristic ideology that has little to do with religion at all.

You know that saying about throwing out the baby with the bath water?
Well with respect to islam there is no baby, its all just dirty bathwater!

You know, at first I give the benefit of the doubt. I am not one to jump to conclusions without supporting evidence. Years ago that's how I treated islam. Then I read the islamic trilogy.

So how exactly do you reconcile the obvious evils and contradictions within islam? As you are obviously a muslim I ask this seriously. How can you reject freedom of the individual to choose for themselves?
Islam is nothing more than slavery to a bunch of bearded despots that pretend to speak for god.
No one speaks for God. Its up to men (the all inclusive reference if you please) to correct the injustices of the world.

So I'll stick with the DOI the US Constitution and the BOR. Which are far superior to any religious screed that I have studied. And they certainly define things in clear and unambiguous language that doesn't need interpreting by some puffed up brainwashed whacko.

If you can, respond with something of value, because so far you have not and I stand vehemently opposed.

Schlomotion

I do not support the genocide of Jews. I do support treating Jews like anyone else and that includes vilifying any one of them that is a pro-war, genocidal maniac and opponent of human rights.

This is a new thing, Jews grandstanding about how someone is an antisemite and then getting laughed at and made fun of for being a drama queen. We should enjoy this new plateau in interpersonal relations. It really has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

It's just good clean fun and it puts the past where it rightfully belongs, in the past.

Ted G

You did not reply to the correct post but I follow it anyway.

If true that's good to hear…
However It is the totality of your own writings that have allowed me to reach this logical conclusion Schlomo. Stop projecting.

But really Schlomo your not being provocative here your being counterproductive. The written word and free expression can be a powerful thing when used properly. Like I said before "what a waste".

I have no idea what you are trying to say after your first paragraph.
Was it directed at me? If so why?

I am a born american of french canuck, english some german and bit of american indian decent.
I was brought up and schooled in New England, and went to a protestant church until I grew up.

Say what you mean and mean what you say, stop BS ing around.
Plausible deniability doesn't cut it!
It's like Obama saying he is not an socialist.

Ted G

To the editor or monitor or whatever.

I don't understand why my reply to schlomo was not posted. It was not rude or vulgar and I did not call him names or swear or anything.
I thought we have been rather polite so far.

wctaqiyya

I think the editor is a computer which eliminates posts if it detects a word it deems bad or resembles a 'bad' word. For example, coc*-t*il would get scrubbed. .

Ted G

Well forget about my original reply, but anyway. after the first paragraph schlomo nothing makes sense. can you explain?

Are you spreading yourself too thin around all these blogs, you really didn't take much time with this last post. it almost even appears that you were bit at a loss for words. Is attack the last resort?

Schlomotion

I admit, not I am not sure what you are asking me to clarify. Reading back, I thought you were asking me about this issue of whether or not I bristle at other people coming to valid or non-valid conclusions about me and categorizing me based on my statements. I don't bristle about that. That's a worry for college-age people.

Or maybe you were asking me about why I revel in the idea that the old fight over whether someone is an antisemite or not is dead, or that the word boomerangs on the user? It is my view that racial and religious animosities and loyalties belong in the last century, not this one, so when I find them, I grab them and punt them backwards.

If you wanted me to tell you the virtues of Islam, I don't want to. I think it has virtues. I have read the Koran, but I don't want to defend or proselytize any religions. I don't believe in any religion well enough to make a heart-felt case of it.

I do work to crush all of the rhetoric that is being used in these types of discussions simply because the words and language are the machinery used in perpetuating so much bad action here.

Ted G

Well we are now really out of sync here, let me try to right this thread a bit.

Aside from the distraction from wctaqiyya…

The admin for some reason did not post my original comments shown as "Ted G 20hrs ago: until the last 1/2hr or so.
hence my post directed to the monitor, followed by a briefer response.

However it was in response to this partial;

Quote
This is a new thing, Jews grandstanding about how someone is an antisemite and then getting laughed at and made fun of for being a drama queen. We should enjoy this new plateau in interpersonal relations. It really has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

It's just good clean fun and it puts the past where it rightfully belongs, in the past.
Unquote

This made no sense to me in the context of our comment string.

Ted G

I should have said the post leading with;

"You did not reply to the correct post but I follow it anyway."

Ted G

Wow now I'm a bit disturbed, not just because I find this post to be clear and concise, but because I find myself without any major objections to almost all of it.

But (there's always a but isn't there), if your going to crush the rhetoric shouldn't you be doing it equally. You really can't claim neutrality and then support disarming only one side, metaphorically speaking of course.

That was my objection and scorn regarding two of your stated goals, Dismantling Hasbara and stopping the war on terror.
IMO it shows you to be a supporter of the other side. Which pardon my leap of logic includes the genocide of the Jewish people.

Also I guess a certain amount of misunderstanding can occur based on the audiences reading and comprehension skills, but you may have to also consider that you are not articulating yourself adequately in your writings.

P.S Caution, the continuity of this thread is skewed based on the late approval of one of the posts by the admin.

Schlomotion

"But (there's always a but isn't there), if your going to crush the rhetoric shouldn't you be doing it equally."

I agree. But I don't think Muslims come here to this site. If it ever comes down to Muslims dancing around in nightgowns telling white women they can't wear shorts, and men can't drink beer or listen to music, then of course I will make fun of them without mercy (I've had good scathing mockery arguments with Nation of Islam members before). If I lived in England, for example, I'd probably be making fun of Muslims regularly and then making fun of the sissy police that come around and tell you not to offend ethnic minorities, but that's not America.

The comment about antisemitism that you were asking me about was not directed toward you specifically, except that I was delinking it to the Holocaust, or delinking any idea that telling Jews off relates to genocide against Jews.

wctaqiyya

Hey, I did caution you and you did ask the question. Yes, no virtues. Well, simplicity is sort of a virtue. Ted, I think you are missing the point here. You asked for an argument to be made on behalf of Islam. I delivered the best one I could in the time allotted. I was hoping you would enjoy reading it as I enjoyed writing it. But, there is a serious element in play here. That is, you seem oblivious to the imminence of the west's demise. You also, like so many others, refuse to acknowledge the deep flaws in the society you claim to cherish. Not one word have you typed in response to the flaws I mentioned. Why not? Do you think some Republican or Democrat will save the day? Your statements about how bad Islam is does nothing to cure the west's many failures and sins. I'm interested in learning more about this 'head-in-the-sand-mentality' I see everywhere I go. Ted, can you help me out with that?

And now you want me to write about how bad Islam is? After yelling at me for answering your first question? OK, Islam is a barbaric belief system. But, because it has so much energy and highly motivated followers, it is winning. It will continue to win unless or until the west cleans house and gets it's affairs in order. I already mentioned a few of those affairs, the rest, like expelling all Muslims should be self-evident. But sadly, are not. Truly we live in a corrupted world.

Ted G

Well no you really didn't provide a pro islam argument at all, you simply went into a semi incoherent rant about what you think is wrong with the west.
This is typical of what I see from islamists, no answers to address the problems their religion creates, they just try to turn the discussion around.

Sorry you don't get to change the subject and then accuse me of not responding.

P.S. there was no yelling.

wctaqiyya

Now Ted, you hurt my feelings. You seem not to be paying attention. Surely, if you have ever seen a real pro- Islamic argument, you would know that mine in no way resembles them. Why do you suppose that is? To the contrary, a 'real' one would contain references to how peaceful they are and how they honor women, children and critters, etc. Don't you know that Islamic women enjoy greater freedom than the ones in the west? Yep, they are happy and joyful. I'm shocked that you don't know this.

Ted, your last reply is the second time that you complained about me not providing a 'real' pro-Islam argument. After the first time, I did my best to confirm your suspicion. Did you forget?

Sadly, It seems you live under the delusion that my writing style must conform to your desires. This is not so. To accomplish what you seem to want, merely read your own words. No my friend, nor is it my job to explain sarcasm, satire and ambivalence. Though, maybe someone should. And yes, I can change the subject. It's called writing, for a reason.

For a minute, I hoped to engage with a person capable of multidimensional, creative and flexible thought. But, you are boring and can extend your thoughts no farther than a five year old child. You want what you want and you want it now. Or, you will stand 'vehemently' opposed. Well, at least you didn't use all caps. Ha ha. Yeah, that's not fun for me. Paper cut-outs can engage my interest just as well. See ya in the funny papers dude.

Ted G

I guess i wasn't paying attention. Certainly recognizing now in this post of yours that which I obviously did not earlier.

If you intended and I did not recognize your comments as mocking satire, then I will except the blame for that. But there is no reason to be insulting about it.

Please pardon me for that. Maybe my perceptions clouded my judgement in that respect. I was actually seeing from you an adversarial approach and bit of condescension. Mea cupa

But again no need for insults. I still haven't reached a conclusion as to your integrity. Mostly because I was beginning to be perplexed by your comments.

Anyway, there I was thinking seriously and you were having fun.
But if you were to put yourself in my shoes at that moment in time (thinking seriously) this scathing post of yours is a bit harsh. No?

And BTW I did not ask you twice, you interjected yourself the first time and if as you say I went off with a mistaken assumption, you could have corrected me then with your follow up post but you did not.

My first reply was strong but not rude. But you allowed it go on.
Please re-read the flow and lets see where we go from there eh?

Wars have been fought over less!
And not to belabor the point but I think you know what I stand "vehemently opposed" to. Now I'm the one with his feelings hurt.

Ted G

I did craft a rather conciliatory response last night. It may still make it here today sometime I don't know. The admin seems to have a delay when the posts come in after 5:00 pm.

Anyway, wctaqiyya I went back and re-read your posts. And now I'm not so sure that I should have at that time recognized any sarcasm, satire or ambivalence there.

You came across as both serious and sincere to me. That's how I took it and that's how I responded.

But whether it was I that did not see it as mocking satire as you say it was or maybe it was you that should have put a disclaimer on it still IMO did not deserve your insulting follow up.

wctaqiyya

You may be right Ted. I think, upon reflection, that I was too harsh. I do tend towards the bombastic and I mix satire with sincerity, making my comments ambivalent and difficult to evaluate. Maybe even schizophrenic? I also have very little patience. Those are just a few of my many flaws.

Your questions are good. The problem I had was that after asking a question, you seemed to have already formed a firm and inflexible opinion, before hand. Thus, in my mind, making the questions seem superfluous and insincere. These things can be over-analyzed, so I will simply conclude that I jumped to the wrong conclusion, overreacted and apologize for my rudeness.

Ted G

wctaqiyya,
I thank you and wholeheartedly accept. I will look forward to any future exchanges.
I also promise to be more circumspect in my reading of posts.

Life is a process of unending education.

Asma Marwan

LOL at Schlomotion – who wants Xians to be crucified on the cross of pacifism and who’s never heard of “love the sinner, hate the sin” or that lovely Islamic concept of taqiyya.

Mark Tooley is a satanist? LOL at Schlomo.

Eric

You have to be anchored EXTREMELY far to the right to consider the Vatican and National Association of Evangelicals the "religious Left." Both have put out very strong statements supporting ATT and are actively working toward it, with the NAE even correcting some of the misstatements and false fears raised by Tooley. When all the major American Christian bodies are praising this treaty and saying we need a strong one, it's probably worth Christians taking what Tooley says with a few cups of salt. ATT will reduce suffering of the least of these, save missionary lives, and stem the flow of bullets and guns being used against our troops. That should be a no-brainer for any American, but it's an especially easy thing for Christians to support (even more so when they know the Vatican and NAE have examined the treaty process and are fully in support). We should always put our Christianity before our political ideologies.

capelady

If you truly believe that anything the United Nations does in the name of peace is a farce. This is the organization that gives the most tyrannical dictators and murderers an equal voice. Do you believe that Russia, China, the radical Islamist nations, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba… etc… will be influenced by ANYTHING that is signed on the dotted line at the United Nations? (At the same time our Founders were wise enough to build into the foundations of our government the right to bear arms to protect the citizens of America from that kind of tyranny – and if you don't believe that could happen, think again!)

The Vatican and the National Association of Evangelicals are incredibly naive.

Jesus was not.

aharris

And so begins the great falling away when Christians forget their faith in favor of trying to enforce their religious views through force of global law. Do they even teach the Book of Revelation anymore?

Ted G

"I shall fully support and defend the U.S.Constitution of the US of A.

Support for this BS treaty is treason, pure and simple. How can they support this treaty while honoring their oath of office? They can't!

Its also fairly plain IMHO that we should encourage arming the populations of the world. It's much more challenging for despots and religious whackos to murder and subjugate when the people can defend themselves and shoot back.

I do believe that there have been actual studies and opinions that support the arming of civilian populations to reduce genocide. You all remember that word genocide, that which goes on but the U.N denies.!

Asher

Let me say that We the People do Not Recognize any foreign treaties from the United Nations, Nor do we Comply with what is not lawful or written in our Constitution, Nor do we give up our weapons, or second amendment rights in the constitution to defend ourselves from foreign regimes and Totalitarian Governments!

Ted G

Bravo Asher!

WilliamJamesWard

The left in all of it's forms is anti-American and the leftist Churches are overcome from within by
leftist suversion and are non-Christian. Jesus Himself said "I have not come to bring peace but a
sword"..see…….Matthew 10: 34-39……………………………..William

dos

Disarm will never equal to peace. The only thing that prevents USSR's aggression was the strong arm of the US during the Cold War. Sudan is another good and vivid example. S. Sudan wants peace but she doesn't have a strong military, therefore she's being beaten up badly by the N. Sudan, an Islamist country. European countries were so against violence that they signed peace treaty with Nazi and willing to lay down their arms, the result? Everybody knows, but modern pacifists still willingly ignore the history and determined to repeat the history, i.e. to have the WWIII. Maybe they believe the bad guys have learned lessons from the history so they will behave themselves? This proves revolution to become better had never happened, self-destruction because of stupidity is the new theory.

David

Those who beat their weapons into plowshares, will plow for those who did not.

Anne

Yup. Jesus was a fool and so were the prophets. You tell 'em. The Bible is full of socialist crap.

David

Molon labe.

Asher

Why do they think the U.S. hasn't been invaded? Weapons! Do these idiots really think they will save more people from destruction by disarming good people and letting evil people have weapons. Look at the Logic here. This insanity and way of thinking is how we know there are plans to create a war on our streets, just like Greece, Libya, Syria, and other MIddle Eastern countries.

UCSPanther

As a rather hilarious and sick aside, China claims that private gun ownership in the US is a "human rights" violation, but yet, they are a huge exporter of firearms and have a pretty poor human rights record themselves.

Pot, meet kettle.

wctaqiyya

Just what is this nonsense? How in the heck does anyone expect us to liberate Cuba if we ain't got no firearms to bring along on the trip? Jeepers, will the madness never end?

cynthia curran

Actually, the left uses early church figures that are mention by Edward Gibbon that the early church was anti-military like martin of Tours. What is interesting in the late 3rd century a church was found that had a donation by a centurion in the inscription, so maybe the church wasn't as anti-military as thought. And protestants who comdemmed Constantine a lot are also responsible for the pacifism of the protestant left, Catholic left and Orthodox left even though the latter sees Constantine as a saint.

http://www.searchquotes.com/quotes/about/Faith/ faith quotes

One of the most prominent poets, Elizabeth Browning, once said that "Love does not make the world go round; it makes the whole ride worthwhile

Miraz

After searching a lots of sites I have got my information here. This is really full of unique information.marilyn monroe quotes

Miraz

Websites should be like this. Full of important information and user friendly. Really happy to get the address of this website.quotes about love

http://www.searchquotes.com/search/Broken_Heart/ broken heart quotes

Pretty good post. I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you post !broken heart quotes

http://www.searchquotes.com/quotes/about/Funny_Facebook_Status/ dream

This is good article, very informative and on the spot. I'm happy I stopped by and I'm very fond of the fact that I have learned something today. Keep up the good work.funny facebook statuses